Bible Quotation For Today/Why
are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and
my feet; see that it is I myself. Luke 24/36-48: "/"While they were
talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be
with you.’They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a
ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your
hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see;
for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’ And when he
had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they
were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here
to eat?’They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their
presence. Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I
was still with you that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the
prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’Then he opened their minds to
understand the scriptures,and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the
Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that
repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all
nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things."

Bible Quotation For Today/If
you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God
raised him from the dead, you will be saved
Letter to the Romans 10/01-13: "Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and
prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I can testify that they have a
zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the
righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have
not submitted to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law so that
there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Moses writes concerning
the righteousness that comes from the law, that ‘the person who does these
things will live by them.’But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do
not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" ’ (that is, to bring
Christ down) ‘or "Who will descend into the abyss?" ’ (that is, to bring Christ
up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, on your lips and
in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you
confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God
raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and
so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture
says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no
distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous
to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall
be saved.".

Mother's Day: Love, Sacrifices and
Commitment
Elias Bejjani
May 10/15
The Spirit Of My mother who like every and each loving departed mother is
definitely watching from above and praying for all of us. May Almighty God Bless
her spirit and the Spirits of all departed mothers.
In Christianity Virgin Merry is envisaged by many believers and numerous
cultures as the number one role model for the righteous, devoted, loving ,
caring, giving, and humble mothers.
Today while in Canada we are happily and joyfully celebrating the Mothers' Day,
let us all pray that Almighty God will keep granting all mothers all over the
world the needed graces of wisdom, meekness and faith to highly remain under all
circumstances honoring this holy role model and to stay as Virgin Merry fully
devoted to their families.
In all religions and cultures all over the world, honoring, respecting and
obeying parents is not a favor that people either chose to practice or not. No
not at all, honoring, respecting and obeying parents is a holy obligation that
each and every faithful individual who believes in God MUST fulfill, no matter
what.
Almighty God in His 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 ) made the honoring of both
parents (commandment number five) a holy obligation, and not a choice or a
favor.
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land
which the Lord your God is giving you". (Exodus 20:12)
Reading the Bible, both the Old and New Testament shows with no doubt that
honoring parents is a cornerstone and a pillar in faith and righteousness for
all believers. All other religions and cultures share with Christians this holy
concept and obligation.
“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that
your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD
your God is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 5:16)
"You shall each revere your mother and father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I
am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:3).
Back home in Lebanon we have two popular proverbs that say: "If you do not have
an elderly figure in your family to bless you, go and search for one". "The
mother is the who either gathers or divides the family"
How true are these two proverbs, because there will be no value, or meaning for
our lives if not blessed and flavored by the wisdom, love and blessings of our
parents and of other elder members.
He who does not honor the elderly, sympathize and empathize with them,
especially his own parents is a person with a hardened heart, and a numbed
conscience, who does not know the meaning of gratitude.
History teaches us that the easiest route for destroying a nation is to destroy,
its cornerstone, the family. Once the family code of respect is belittled and
not honored, the family is divided and loses all its Godly blessings.
"Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against
itself falls" (Luke 11-17)
One very important concept and an extremely wise approach MUST apply and prevail
when reading the Holy Bible in a bid to understand its contents and observe the
Godly instructions and life guidelines that are enlisted. The concept needs to
be a faith one with an open frame of mind free from doubts, questions and
challenges.
Meanwhile the approach and interpretation MUST both be kept within the abstract
manner, thinking and mentality frame, and not in the concrete way of
interpretation.
We read in (Matthew 15/04: "For God said, Respect your father and your mother,
and If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death).
This verse simply dwells on The Fifth Biblical Commandment: "Honor your Father
and Mother". To grasp its meaning rightfully and put it in its right faith
content one should understand that death in the Bible is not the death of the
body as we experience and see on earth. DEATH in the Bible means the SIN that
leads to eternal anguish in Hell.
The Bible teaches us that through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, Jesus
defeated death in its ancient human, earthly concept. He broke the death thorn
and since than, the actual death became the sin. Those who commit the sin die
and on the judgment day are outcast to the eternal fire. Death for the believers
is a temporary sleep on the hope of resurrection.
Accordingly the verse "If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be
put to death", means that those who do not honor their parents, help, support
and respect them commit a deadly sin and God on the Judgment Day will make them
accountable if they do not repent and honor their parents.
God is a Father, a loving, passionate and caring One, and in this context He
made the honoring of parents one of the Ten Commandments.
In conclusion: The abstract and faith interpretation of Matthew 15/04 verse must
not be related to children or teenagers who because of an age and maturity
factors might temporarily repel against their parents and disobey them.
Hopefully, each and every one of us, no matter what religion or denomination
he/she is affiliated to will never ever ignore his parents and commit the deadly
SIN of not honoring them through every way and mean especially when they are old
and unable to take care of themselves.
For all those of us whose mothers have passed away, let us mention them in our
daily prayers and ask Almighty God to endow their souls the eternal rest in His
heavenly dwellings.
Happy Mothers' Day to all mothers

It doesn't fit...
Walid Phares DC
25 years later, many regular folks in Lebanon are learning that lots of things
they've heard from politicians do not fit with many other things they've also
heard. For example they cannot fit a truly multiethnic federal system in the
Taef mono-identity agreement, disarming the militias with the a para-state
"resistance," Aramaic language with the country's official solo-Arabism, UNSCR
1559 with Syro-Lebanese defense accord, praising the past after abandoning it, 'wa
ila ma hunalika min' (and so many) urban legends created by opinion makers for
over 40 years. It simply doesn't fit. The public complains to the world, but the
country is stuck with an establishment disconnected from reality. Someone has to
sort it out first, someone from inside the country. Someone who is not part of
the making of its chaos. Then it may be possible to get disentangled. Otherwise,
more of the same...

Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi
Says Arsal Hostages Deal in 'Final Phase', Kidnappers Procrastinate over
Financial ConditionsNaharnet/09.05.15/Justice Minister
Ashraf Rifi stated on Saturday after meeting families of the Arsal captives that
part of the thorny file could be heading towards the final stages of a solution,
in light of reports that the kidnappers are trying to benefit financially from a
set of new conditions before closing the deal. “The efforts exerted to solve
this file are immense, and part of the file could be heading towards the final
stages of a solution,” said Rifi. "I discussed in Turkey with head of the Syrian
Coalition means to help the servicemen and he expressed utmost readiness to do
so," he added. Islamists militants, who abducted several Lebanese servicemen in
the northeastern border town of Arsal in August 2014, are reportedly seeking to
improve the financial conditions they set to release the hostages in their
captivity. An official source told al-Mustaqbal newspaper published that the
“kidnappers are trying to surpass the principles that were agreed upon.”The
source said that “the deal is only waiting for setting the necessary mechanism
to implement it.”
It pointed out that “as the agreement reached its final stages the abductors
tried to blackmail the Lebanese state by raising their conditions ahead of the
expected prisoners swap deal,” citing the latest video for the servicemen posted
by the al-Qaida-affiliate al-Nusra Front group. “Lebanon has carried out its
part to implement the deal and the ball is now in their (militants) field.” The
source stressed that the course of negotiations with the abductors wasn't
affected by the battles raging in Syria's al-Qalamoun. On Tuesday, the captive
soldiers and policemen taken hostage by al-Nusra Front warned via a video
footage released by the group that they will be executed if Syria's Qalamoun
front was waged. “If the Lebanese army and Hizbullah were dragged into a battle
in Qalamoun, we will be the ones to pay the price,” one of the soldiers said,
accusing General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim of “lying to the families of the
servicemen.” However, Ibrahim stressed on Friday that mediators are “racing
time” to secure a swap deal to free the Lebanese servicemen, amid concerns that
military developments in Syria's Qalamoun region might affect their fate. “We
were in contact with the Qatari mediator last night and he told us positive news
about this issue and I can confirm that the servicemen are safe. I don't want to
set a date but, God willing, a solution is imminent,” he added. “The video that
surfaced days ago will not affect us, our morale or the course of negotiations,”
said Ibrahim, noting that he is seeking to finish the deal “in a manner that
preserves Lebanese sovereignty and laws.”Addressing the anxious families,
Ibrahim called for patience and underlined that their “pressure” will only
increase the Lebanese authorities' “determination” to finalize the case. A
number of soldiers and policemen were abducted by al-Nusra Front and the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) gunmen in the wake of clashes in Arsal. A
few of them have since been released, four were executed, and the rest remain
held.

Hizbullah,
Syrian Army Take Control of al-Qalamoun's JubaNaharnet/Hizbullah fighters backed
by the Syrian Army reportedly took control of new militant positions on the
outskirts of the Syrian al-Qalamoun town, which borders Lebanon. Al-Manar
reported that Hizbullah and the Syrian forces completely seized the outskirts of
al-Juba town, which compelled Islamists militants to flee the area towards Ras
al-Maarah, Fleita and al-Rahwa, along the Lebanese border. Voice of Lebanon
(93.3) also said that Hizbullah and the Syrian troops took control of al-Mohmadat
Hill, which oversees Wadi al-Zaaroura that links the outskirts of Brital with
Juba. Syrian jets also shelled the outskirts of the northeastern border town of
Arsal and flew over Lebanon's Eastern Mountain range. Later, VDL (93.3) reported
that the two allies also captured Wadi al-Kneisseh crossing between al-Juba and
Assal al-Wared. Fighting has intensified in the past week in the mountainous al-Qalamoun
region across the border from Lebanon, where militants from the Islamic State
group and the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front are entrenched. Hizbullah and
Syrian government troops took control on Thursday of strategic heights in the
Syrian region of al-Qalamoun that abuts Lebanon's eastern border. The control of
the area on the outskirts of Assal al-Wared came following heavy clashes with
al-Nusra Front. Hizbullah stated on Friday that the number of fighters who were
killed in Syria's al-Qalamoun front were only three, denying media reports
claiming otherwise. Some media outlets said that more than 40 of Hizbullah
fighters had died in fighting against Islamic militants near the border with
Lebanon this week. However, al-Nusra Front said in statement via Twitter: “A
large number of Hizbullah and Syrian army members were killed and others wounded
in fighting with al-Fatah al-Qalamoun army in Assal al-Wared.” Hizbullah has
been fighting alongside Assad's forces against predominantly Sunni rebels and
militants seeking to topple him. On Friday, Hizbullah and the troops of Syrian
President Bashar Assad attacked militant posts in al-Qalamoun's Juba area after
they compelled them to withdraw from the town of Assal al-Wared, which is near
the Lebanese border enclave of Tufail, which is surrounded by Syrian lands to
its north, east and south, and by the Lebanese villages of Ham, Maarboun and
Brital to its west.

Qalamoun battle
is do-or-die for Bashar Assad, Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Gen. SoleimaniDEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 9,
2015
Two contenders are locked in a fateful contest to win the strategic Qalamoun
Mts. on the Syrian-Lebanese border: The Syrian army and its Hizballah ally are
fighting tooth and nail against the opposition Army of Conquest, which is
spearheaded by Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. This battle has all of a
sudden attained the proportions of a critical regional contest, which poses dire
consequences for the Iran-Syrian-Hizballah alliance at large and its three prime
movers, Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hizballah leader Hassan Nastrallah, and
their overall commander, Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the Al Qods
Brigades.
With so much hanging in the balance, it is no wonder that Hizballah issued
confused communiqués on the battle, until Nasrallah interceded Tuesday, May 5 to
say: “We have not issued a statement, and we will not issue a statement. When we
launch a (Qalamoun) operation, it will be obvious to everyone.”
The operation is, however, already in full flight. Neither Nasrallah nor anyone
else can predict its outcome for sure, because a radical, unforeseen shift has
taken place in the balance of strength. For the first time in nearly five years
of Syrian civil war, the United States has lined up with Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Qatar and the UAE to give the Syrian opposition heavy weapons. Had they been
supplied earlier, the war might have ended sooner and many of the hundreds of
thousands of victims might have been saved.
Also, after a long silence, senior Obama administration spokesmen were finally
willing to blast the Assad regime for his heinous war crimes.
Friday, May 8, three senior spokesmen confirmed as “strong and credible” the
reports that the Syrian army had reverted to the use of chemical weapons. They
were Robert Malik, US ambassador to the Hague-based Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, US Undersecretary of State Antony Nlnken and US
ambassador to the UN Samantha Power.
They were willing to “disclose” a fact - long common knowledge in the region -
that the Syrian army had retained a part of its chemical stockpile. This
disclosure exposed the much-acclaimed US-Russian accord concluded by Secretary
of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the end of 2013,
forcing Assad to surrender his chemical arsenal, as a more or less dead letter.
On the heels of the US accusation, PCWU international inspectors revealed that
traces of sarin and VX nerve agents were found in Syria last December and in
January.
The new Obama administration’s diplomatic offensive against Assad came as the
Qalamoun showdown attained momentous proportions, after two weeks of heavy
Syrian military war reverses in the north. The sharp US edge was also directed
at Gen. Soleimani, who is responsible for Iran’s supply of chorine-filled barrel
bombs dropped by the Syrian air force on civilians in rebel-held areas.
Washington has refocused its attention on Syrian-Iranian chemical warfare out of
two broader considerations:
1. Iran’s cavalier contempt for the international accords and treaties banning
chemical weapons raises tough questions about Tehran’s credibility and
trustworthiness for upholding the comprehensive nuclear accord currently in
negotiation with the Six Powers. Can Iran be trusted to honor any commitment to
allow the “intrusive inspections” of its nuclear sites, which President Barack
Obama has pledged as the underpinning of any accord?
2. President Obama has just lately adopted a plan some members of his National
Security Council put forward: It is to get the Iranians moving on the nuclear
deal by applying a painful prod in the form of a wedge in the Revolutionary
Guards (IRGC) leadership. IRGC chief Gen. Ali Jafari is being elevated as a
“moderate” and the “good guy” of the regime, while Gen. Soleimani, the Al Qods
chief, who orchestrates IRGC’s external subversive operations, is fingered as
the “bad guy.’
Jafary is also to receive economic incentives for accepting the nuclear accord,
while denouncing Soleimani, leading light of Iran’s military interventions in
Iraq, Syria and Yemen, may have the added benefit of forcing Tehran to pull in
its horns in those conflicts.
Time will tell whether this tactic is effective. As matters stand in May 2015,
it is hoped that undercutting Soleimani’s repute will impinge on the level of
Iranian military involvement in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. A decision by Tehran to
downscale its military support for the Syrian and Hizballah armed forces may
undo them in the battle of Qalamoun. This defeat will seriously undermine Assad,
Nasrallah and Soleimani. And so the Syrian opposition and its backers have all
the more reason to push hard to win this fateful encounter.

Zasypkin
Defends Hizbullah, Says Not Similar to ISIL
Naharnet/Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin defended on Saturday
Hizbullah's intervention in Syria, describing the group as a resistance that
participates in political life and aids a legitimate regime in Syria.The
ambassador rejected in comments published in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat
comparison between the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Hizbullah,
stressing that the differences are “fundamental.”“ISIL is a terror faction while
Hizbullah is a resistance that participates in politics and aids a legitimate
regime in Syria,” The diplomat refused a statement by Hizbullah chief Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah that Russia, Iran and Hizbullah belong to the same axis,
however he noted that Moscow and Tehran agree on supporting Syrian President
Bashar Assad. The so-called axis of resistance comprises Iran, Syria and
Hizbullah. Hizbullah is a close ally of the Syrian regime and has been fighting
alongside government troops against an uprising there. Its involvement has
helped the army to recapture key territory, but drawn the ire of many in
Lebanon. Zasypkin reiterated his country's support to the Baabda Declaration,
which was endorsed by Lebanon's rival political parties on June 11, 2012,
following a national dialogue session at the Baabda Palace. It calls for keeping
Lebanon away from the policies and conflicts of the region and the world, except
when it comes to abiding by the resolutions of the United Nations, the Arab
consensus and the Palestinian cause. “It is provides Lebanon with security and
stability,” ambassador said, stressing that the implementation of the
dissociation is “tough as it is impossible to isolate Lebanon from Syria.”
Zasypkin voiced concern over the ongoing presidential stalemate, saying: “I fear
that the vacuum would become a normal issue as the rivals are holding onto their
stance.”Lebanon has been without a president since May last year when the term
of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes
between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted
the election. Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance and MP Michel Aoun's Change
and Reform blocs have been boycotting the polls over the dispute.

Report: Al-Rahi Kicks Off Talks with Maronite Rivals to End
Presidential Crisis
NaharnetظMaronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi wrapped up the first round of talks
with Christian leaders to press them to ease tension and elect a new head of
state. According to An Nahar newspaper published on Saturday, al-Rahi dispatched
former Minister Roger Deeb to visit the four Maronite leaders separately. Diab's
tour included Kataeb Party chief Amin Gemayel, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP
Michel Aoun, head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea and Marada Movement leader
MP Suleiman Franjieh.
The envoy briefed the four leaders on al-Rahi's recent meeting with French
President Francois Hollande, the daily reported. Media reports said on Tuesday
that a papal envoy will arrive in Beirut at the end of May to press forward the
election of a new president amid the sharp rift among the political arch-foes
over a consensual candidate. The Vatican’s move comes in light of al-Rahi's
recent visit to Paris, where he met with Hollande and underlined the importance
of France's role in pushing forward the election of a president. France is
reportedly seeking to end the presidential stalemate in coordination with the
Patriarch, who will discuss the possible options to reach a settlement with
Christian rivals. Lebanon has been without a president since May last year when
the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing
disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have
thwarted the election. Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance and Aoun's Change
and Reform blocs have been boycotting the polls over the dispute.

Salam Meets Prominent Security Officials, Discuss
DevelopmentsNaharnet /Prime Minister Tammam Salam chaired on Saturday a
meeting that was attended by high-ranking security officials to discuss the
latest security developments in the country.Media reports described the meeting
as “positive.” The meeting was attended by deputy PM and Defense Minister Samir
Moqbel, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq, Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi,
General Prosecutor Judge Samir Hammoud, Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji,
State Security chief George Qaraa, General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim, Higher
Defense Council chief Mohammed Khair, Internal Security chief Brig. Gen. Ibrahim
Basbous, Army Intelligence chief Brig. Gen. Edmond Fadel and head of ISF
Information Branch Imad Othman. A meeting for the Central Security Council was
presided by Mashnouq on Friday night. Sources told al-Joumhouria newspaper
published on Saturday that the meeting highlighted the dangers imposed by the
developments in the region, stressing the importance of preventing the conflicts
from impacting Lebanon. Mashnouq reportedly called on security agencies to boost
their measures and cooperate with each other and with the judicial authorities
to maintain stability in Lebanon. The Lebanese security forces began
implementing strict security measures recently and kicked off security plans
across the country to reduce crime rates and clamp down on terrorists. Police
and army have been carrying out large-scale raids and managed to arrest scores
of offenders. The meetings come as fighting intensified in the past week in the
mountainous Qalamoun region across the border from Lebanon, where Hizbullah
fighters along side Syrian forces engaged in battles with jihadists from the
Islamic State group and the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front, who are entrenched
on the porous border between Lebanon and Syria. The IS, which controls several
areas in Syria and Iraq, aims to spread to Lebanon as its fighters position in
the outskirts of Bekaa towns bordering Syria and the Lebanese army is in adamant
efforts to stop their efforts to infiltrate the country.

Derbas Says Social Affairs Ministry to Survey Number of
Refugees
Naharnet/Social Affairs Minister Rashid Derbas stressed on Saturday that the
number of registered Syrian refugees didn't drop-off so far. He revealed in
comments published in An Nahar newspaper that his ministry will “carry out a new
survey to count the displaced” to unveil the effectiveness of the new measures
taken by the state to limit their numbers. Derbas stressed that the “crossing of
Syrians into Lebanon decreased” but the number of those who are registered
remained the same. His comments come in light of a statement by General Security
chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim, who said that the numbers of Syrians in
Lebanon “decreases by 300,000” since the new implemented measures to control the
flow of refugees. Although Lebanese border officials began informally
restricting the entry of Syrians last October, Beirut officially imposed visa
regulations in December on their neighbors. The move was the first such in
decades. The UNHCR says there are about 1,150,000 Syrian refugees registered in
Lebanon. Derbas and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil were at loggerheads recently
over the Syrian refugee crisis after accusations that the authorities were
accepting more displaced Syrians despite a decision not to do so. Derbas and
Bassil briefly argued over the issue during a cabinet session held at the Grand
Serail after the foreign minister told the government that he had information
about the entry of more Syrian refugees to Lebanon. Since last September, around
50,000 new refugees have been officially registered, Bassil told the cabinet.
But Derbas denied Bassil's claims.

The Difference Between Islam and
Islamism?
Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/May 9, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5695/islam-islamism-difference
Pressures against non-Muslims in Turkey are actually empowered, motivated and
even led by state policies.
There also does not seem to be any interest or pluralistic mentality in
enforcing non-Islamic laws.
To understand the root cause of social intolerance and institutionalized
violence, it is important to look more closely at how Islamic scriptures refer
to non-Muslims. These labels and lies, fed to Muslims from earliest childhood,
apparently do not go away easily in the minds of indoctrinated Muslims. For
those who oppose Islamic rule, there are only three options: They are either to
be killed; made to accept their inferior status through conversion to Islam, or
keep their heritage but pay the jizya, the Islamic "protection" tax."
Although there is a more or less "secular" constitution in Turkey, the
anti-Semitic and anti-non-Muslim culture seems to have more influence over
people even than laws. There also does not seem to be any interest or
pluralistic mentality in enforcing non-Islamic laws.
A cemetery in Milas, for example, leads one question the thin, fragile line
between Islam and Islamism -- or between progressive Islam and radical Islam.
Milas, whose name comes from ancient Greek "Mylasa," is a nice town in Anatolia,
where there was once a powerful Jewish community.[1]
After years of neglect and disrepair, the Jewish cemetery in Milas has been
turned into a place where sheep graze and garbage is thrown.
Sheep graze in the neglected Jewish cemetery in Milas, Turkey.
The historic gravestones, which should have been protected as a cultural
heritage, have long since been broken into pieces.
Not only is the town now free of Jews, but now even the Jewish cemetery has been
left to its fate.
"In such an unprotected environment, the cemetery is proceeding step by step to
destruction," wrote Rafael Algranati, a columnist for the newspaper Salom,
In 2009, Jews from Milas talked with Muhammed Tokat, the mayor of the town, and
asked him to stop the destruction of the cemetery; the mayor agreed, Algranati
wrote. The mayor promised that the children's park at the entrance would be
removed and the cemetery would be tidied and arranged. In 2014, he repeated the
promise.
The Jewish community is still waiting.
What is intriguing about the town of Milas is that its municipality is governed
by a mayor from the non-Islamist Republican People's Party (CHP). So in his
case, we are not talking about the religious intolerance of Islamists.[2]
To understand the root cause of social intolerance and institutionalized
violence in Muslim societies, it is important to look more closely at how
Islamic scriptures refer to non-Muslims.
According to the Quran, Jews are "apes and pigs" (5:60). They are also "cursed
by Allah" (5:13), they are "wicked" (4:160-162), are "fond of lies" and "devour
the forbidden" (5:42). They even have "diseased hearts" (5:52).
While Muslims are continually praised in the Quran ("the best of people,"
3:110), non-Muslims are described as less than human and referred to as "the
vilest of animals" (8:55), "the worst of creatures" (98:6), "perverted
transgressors" (3:110), "panting dogs" (7:176), "cattle" (7:179), "perverse"
(2:99), "stupid" (2:171), "deceitful" (3:73) and so on.
This list can go on and on. According to Dr. Bill Warner, the director of the
Center for the Study of Political Islam, 61% of the Quran is about non-Muslims.
These labels and lies about Jews and other non-Muslims that are fed to Muslims
from earliest childhood, apparently do not go away easily in the indoctrinated
minds of Muslims.
According to the supremacist Islamic ideology, non-believers of Islam are
subordinate to Muslims.
For those who oppose Islamic rule, there are only three options: They are to be
either killed; made to accept their inferior status through conversion to Islam,
or allowed to keep their heritage and pay the jizya, the Islamic "protection"
tax.
There is simply no other religion that condemns and dehumanizes those who merely
believe in other faiths, or those who prefer no faith, to this extent.
During the Ottoman Empire, non-Muslims, including Jews, were dhimmis (tolerated,
second-class citizens in an Islamic state, and required to pay the jizya
"protection" tax.)
The "modern" Turkish Republic, however, established in 1923, did not provide
Jews or other non-Muslims with greater rights and liberties, either.
Even though Turkey is one of the few so-called "secular" Muslim countries, its
Jewish, Christian, Alevi, Yezidi and other non-Muslim communities have been
exposed to persecution and systematic discrimination -- including ethnic
cleansings, massacres, pogroms, forced conversions, forced assimilation and
forced displacement for decades under non-Islamist governments.
In 1924, for instance, the Turkish Ministry of National Education asked all
Jewish schools to choose either Turkish or Hebrew as their language of
instruction. This was a smart maneuver, for very few Jews in Turkey had a
command of Hebrew, because they spoke Ladino, the language brought with them
from their expulsion from Spain in 1492. So the Jewish community had to choose
the only suitable alternative, Turkish, as their language of instruction.[3]
Therefore, with the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate, Turkey did not actually
turn into a safer and freer country for non-Muslims. Sadly, even more than 90
years after the establishment of "modern" Turkey, the strong influence of the
anti-Semitic and anti-non-Muslim teachings of the Islamic ideology lives on.
Moreover, pressures against non-Muslims in Turkey are actually empowered and
motivated, and even led by state policies.
But no matter what some Islamic teachings contain, everyone, including Muslims,
has free will -- and needs to use it justly.
Muslims could greatly benefit by seeing that the rights of human beings are not
based on gender or religion; they are simply based on that we are all human
beings together. At least progressive Muslims must show respect towards people
of all faiths, and their cultural heritage.
If they do not, then I will tend to agree with the illustrator and writer Bosch
Fawstin, who wrote that, "the only difference between 'Islamism' and Islam is
three letters."
Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a journalist based in Ankara.
[1] Akarca, Turhan, Askidil Akarca, The Geography, History and Archeology of
Milas, Istanbul Printing Press, Istanbul, 1954.
[2] Results of municipal elections in Milas from 1963 to 2014.
[3] Prof. Aron Rodrique, "The Westernization of Turkish Jews: "Alliance" Schools
1860 – 1925, Ayrac Printing House, 1997, Ankara.

Camp David: A summit and its discontents
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The choice of Camp David as the site for the first ever summit meeting between
President Obama and the Leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was meant
to send a symbolic signal to the Arab leaders present – that the American
president wants to spend some quality time with them at that bucolic retreat,
which he has only used once before for a summit meeting such as this, for the
38th G8 summit in May 2012. But it’s not symbolism that the GCC leaders are
concerned with, rather it’s the nightmarish reality of the unraveling of a
century-old political order and the fraying of a large swath of Arab lands
around them, as well as an ascendant (and in most of their minds belligerent)
Iran, trying to ensure its regional hegemony by projecting its power, sometimes
directly but mostly by proxy, to build an alternative, if still vague, political
scaffolding on the rubble of the dying order.
The purpose of the conclave is to reassure the Gulf allies that the United
States will remain committed to the security of the region. Any nuclear deal
with Iran will not be at the expense of the safety of the Arab nations present,
and the U.S. remains determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The Gulf Arabs are seeking a new, more explicit, and institutionalized ‘security
architecture’ in the region, to be erected by the U.S., and which helps guard
against Iran – containing its regional ambitions, challenging its meddling in
the internal affairs of Arab countries, and protecting against violent Islamists
like the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Qaeda. Because there is no overarching
strategy underpinning this security architecture, it remains vague and is given
various names; “security guarantees, given the behavior of Iran in the region,
given the rise of the extremist threat,” as the UAE envoy to Washington, Yousef
Al Otaiba, said recently, or, according to Secretary of State John Kerry,
speaking in Paris on Friday, “a series of new commitments that will create,
between the United States and the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set
of security initiatives”.
Conflicting wishes and divergent visions
Publicly, both sides are stressing the need to strengthen the security
cooperation, the common struggle against terrorism, and the imperative of
containing Iran’s destabilizing policies. Ideally, some GCC states would like to
sign binding defense treaties with the United States, but they know that this is
beyond the realm of the possible, given the strong reluctance of the
administration and opposition from Congress to anything that could conceivably
diminish Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME). Still, some of them will push
for a ‘strong, explicit and a written commitment from the President’, as one
official said, that if a member of the GCC states is attacked by a foreign
power, the United States will come to its defense. But, there is a strong
reluctance within the Obama administration to enter into any long term and
legally binding military commitment in the Gulf region, at a time when the
administration is trying to ‘rebalance’ or ‘pivot’ to Asia, and after more than
six years of setbacks and disillusionments in the region ranging from the
collapsed Palestine-Israel peace efforts, the failed Libya intervention, the
horrendous blunders in Syria, and the unraveling of the political/security
structures that the U.S. had left in Iraq before its withdrawal. Publicly, U.S.
officials say that there are no plans to reduce America’s high military profile
in the Middle East (more than 35 thousand military personnel), but privately,
they say that in 10 to 15 years the U.S. should not have more than few thousand
military advisors, trainers and technicians involved in intelligence gathering
and operating drones.
One would assume that President Obama will reassure his Arab visitors, that the
U.S. will not abandon the region any time soon
The qualitative and breathtaking transformation of the energy landscape in
America brought about by new technology (fracking, amongst others) which allowed
the U.S. to increase its oil output by four million barrels a day in the last
six years, has created the much exaggerated impression in some Arab capitals
that the U.S. will no longer be interested in investing in the stability of the
Gulf region and patrolling the vital sea lanes. However, this is not necessarily
the case – oil is an international commodity and its prices are determined by
the laws of supply and demand, meaning that disruption of oil production in the
Gulf region will reverberate globally.
In search of the elusive Obama doctrine
One would assume that President Obama will reassure his Arab visitors, that the
U.S. will not abandon the region any time soon, and that he will reiterate
America’s commitment to maintain stability in the Gulf region and his
willingness to sell them more sophisticated weapons system; but it is very
unlikely that he would be able to satisfy their core demand of first containing,
then rolling back Iran’s strategic and tactical gains in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon
and recently Yemen, as well as providing them with unequivocal security
guarantees including a nuclear umbrella, or providing them with meaningful
assurances regarding the so-called ‘sunset clause’, when the restrictions on
Iran’s enrichment activities expire after a decade or fifteen years, bringing it
closer than before to developing nuclear weapons if it chooses. Containing
Iran’s regional meddling should start in Syria, but as former ambassador and
current vice president of Brookings Institution Martin Indyk said at a recent
Atlantic Council event, “President Obama is reluctant to engage on Syria”, maybe
because he has certain strong views that he is not willing to change. A former
senior official who left the Obama administration recently confided to an Arab
diplomat America’s abject weakness in dealing with Iran’s destabilizing
activities; “we are not convinced that we can make a difference if we push hard
against Iran”.
Some Gulf leaders would like to see President Obama issuing a strong declarative
statement regarding Iran and security in the Gulf, amounting to something akin
to the Carter Doctrine of January 1980. Following the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, and the Iranian revolution – two momentous events that occurred in
1979 – and fearing Soviet encroachment into the waters of the Gulf, president
Jimmy Carter, and a Democrat to boot, proclaimed in his State of the Union
speech what became known as the Carter Doctrine which was directed against the
Soviet Union: ‘An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force’. That doctrine led to the formation of the so-called
Rapid Deployment Force for military contingencies in the Gulf region, the
military antecedent of Central Command. In those ‘good old days’, most of
America’s military profile was somewhere ‘behind the horizon’ because it was
felt that large military footprints could backfire politically. That arrangement
was succinctly and eloquently summarized by one astute Arab observer who told an
American interlocutor “we want you to be like the wind; we want to feel you but
we don’t want to see you”. The Times They Are a-Changin' indeed.
Persia’s fascinating pull
A similar Obama doctrine aimed at Iran is hard to see, given the President’s
desire for what one of his senior aides said recently of entering into a ‘grand
bargain’ with Iran. It may be too late and too difficult to enter into such a
grand bargain with Iran, if only because of the opposition of the Iranian
leadership, but that does not mean that the Obama administration is averse to
entering into ‘pragmatic’ arrangements against common enemies. This explains
firstly the tactical and implicit cooperation between the U.S. military and the
Iran-led, Iran-trained Iraqi Shiite militias in the confrontation with ISIS, and
secondly Washington’s aversion to seriously undermine the Assad regime in Syria,
for fear of damaging the prospects of a nuclear deal with Tehran and suffering
Iranian retaliations against American personnel in Iraq (a fear that was
expressed repeatedly by more than one senior administration official). Obama’s
view of Iran – a difficult, meddling, at times intimidating, but essentially
rational actor with a degree of predictability and a clear sense of identity and
purpose, important characteristics that could only be the product of an ancient
civilization – is totally alien to the Gulf Arabs who don’t want to live in the
shadows of a belligerent Iran, notwithstanding its civilizational heft. It is
fascinating to observe Obama’s fascination with Iran, and with the possibilities
of a grand opening, or grand bargain with that ancient land, something that
Obama brought with him to the White House from the moment he arrived there.
Obama’s fascination with Iran is reminiscent of President Richard Nixon’s
fascination with the historic opening to China. You don’t have to deconstruct
Obama’s references to Iran in his speeches and interviews to see and feel the
fascination with Persia and its attendant possibilities.
A trust deficit
It is ironic that those Arab officials who are pushing for explicit and written
security guarantees from President Obama – for a shift from a memorandum of
understanding to a military doctrine – have low expectations of the Camp David
summit achieving serious breakthroughs. In blunt, private conversations you hear
the bitter disappointments and disillusionments of six and half years. They
speak of a ‘trust deficit’ when they address President Obama’s assurances,
promises and threats. Two senior Arab officials from two GCC states were
discussing why they should insist on written security assurances, when, as one
of them mentioned, there was a pattern of presidential dissembling; the
President threatened to attack Syria, and then reneged; he repeatedly promised
to equip and train the Syrian opposition, but he was not serious and kept
dragging his feet and providing limited, tentative support until the beginning
of the fifth year of the conflict. The official noted dryly that the Obama
administration negotiated secretly with Iran regarding the nuclear program and
kept its allies in the dark.
Many in the GCC subscribe to the view that President Obama’s reluctance to push
hard for a residual force in Iraq, and his denial that former Prime Minister
Nuri Al Maliki’s sectarian policies have accelerated Iraq’s unraveling, are in
part responsible for opening the door for Iran to essentially become the
dominant foreign power in Iraq. Obama’s dithering on Syria, his inactions, and
his disingenuous claims that he was being pushed to ‘invade’ Syria, are also
responsible in part for the historic tragedy that Syria is today. Many in the
region are convinced that the Obama administration will not pursue any serious
initiatives to revive the Palestinian-Israeli talks, or play a leading role in
preventing Libya from sliding completely into civil war, even though the U.S.
played a leading role in toppling the regime of Muammar Qaddafi.
Taming the tiger
The Iranian regime has proven repeatedly its political dexterity, and its
diabolical genius in mastering the art of proxy wars, when it showed from Iraq
to Syria to Lebanon, and now to Yemen, that it is capable of fighting Sunni
Arabs with Shiite Arabs. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been using these
Shiite militias – from the Lebanese Hezbollah and various Iraqi Shiite armed
groups, to the Houthis in Yemen – as their foot soldiers. Hezbollah have been
their most effective Janissaries, dispatching their highly mobile and
disciplined units to fight in Syria and Iraq. An Arab diplomat wondered
recently: What would happen if an Arab country began arming Sunnis in Iran or
members of the Arabic speaking communities in Southern Iran?
All this was taking place during the nuclear negotiations with the U.S. and the
P-5 plus one, and at a time when the Iranian economy was supposed to be in free
fall. There is concern in the Middle East that sanctions relief in the wake of a
final nuclear deal will add more than $120 billion in frozen assets to Iran’s
coffers. Surely some of this wealth will be diverted to finance their designs in
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Taming the Iranian tiger will not be easy, and
there are no signs that the U.S. is planning to ease the region away from the
suffocating shadow of the ayatollah. In the meantime, many in the Middle East,
including America’s skeptical allies, are watching with trepidation and
wondering if in the remaining 18 months of its tenure, the Obama administration
will be able to stop the historic fraying of the region. 18 months is too long a
time. Sometimes in America a month can stretch into an eternity of anticipation
and discontent. Lord have mercy…

Egypt court sentences Mubarak, sons to
three years in jail
By REUTERS/J.Post/05/09/2015
CAIRO - An Egyptian court sentenced former president Hosni Mubarak and his two
sons to three years in jail without parole on Saturday in the retrial of a
corruption case.
Mubarak was sentenced to three years in prison last May for diverting public
funds earmarked to renovate presidential palaces and using the money to upgrade
family properties. His two sons were given four-year jail terms in the same
case.
However, in January, Egypt's high court overturned the convictions.
Mubarak, who ruled Egypt with an iron fist for 30 years, and his sons Gamal and
Alaa may not have to serve any jail time for those corruption charges because
they already spent that amount of time in prison in other cases.
"The ruling of the court is three years in prison without parole for Mohamed
Hosni Mubarak and Gamal Mohamed Hosni Mubarak and Alaa Mohamed Hosni Mubarak,"
announced judge Hassan Hassanein.
Mubarak was toppled during the Arab Spring uprisings which swept the region in
2011 and raised hopes of democracy.
But a court decision to drop charges against Mubarak of conspiring to kill
protesters in the uprising focused in Cairo's Tahrir Square and the release from
jail of some of his associates has cast doubt over Egypt's political
transformation

Netanyahu Loses Leverage in Forming
New Government
David Makovsky/Washington Institute
May 09, 2015
Last-ditch campaign promises and bruising coalition negotiations have led
Netanyahu to form a fragile government that may have trouble handling important
domestic issues and foreign relationships.
The next Israeli government, the fourth led by Binyamin Netanyahu, is slated to
be formally established in the coming week. It will consist of 61 members, the
barest majority in Israel's 120-member Knesset. When Netanyahu won the election
two months ago, the size of his victory suggested he would dominate a potential
coalition, with his Likud Party winning 30 seats and the second-largest
coalition partner only 10. Yet the campaign promises that led to his victory
also sowed the seeds of his subsequent dissipation in leverage. By boxing
himself in during the campaign, he gave smaller parties disproportionate power
to enact a policy agenda, while he refrained from associating himself with any
particular agenda beyond stopping Iran from going nuclear.
The resultant situation underscores Israel's need for electoral reform, as large
parties have consistently found themselves at the mercy of smaller ones.
Moreover, given the narrowness of Netanyahu's government, analysts of all
stripes are profoundly doubtful about its ability to govern.
HOW HIS LEVERAGE SLIPPED AWAY
In order to win the March 17 election after finding himself suddenly behind in
the polls, Netanyahu felt compelled to convince more right-wing voters that he
was intent on governing from the right. Toward that end, he declared that he
would not reach across the aisle and form a power-sharing arrangement with the
Labor Party. To fulfill this promise and preserve his credibility after the
election, he was limited to forming a 67-member government with only a select
group of parties. Netanyahu felt confident that these parties had nowhere else
to go because they were largely right-of-center, but he did not have
alternatives either given his campaign promise. The net effect is that Netanyahu
had to reach coalition agreements with the two smaller ultraorthodox Jewish
parties -- Shas (7 seats) and United Torah Judaism (6), whose terms were steep
because they believed Netanyahu had no other option.
In negotiating with these parties, Netanyahu agreed to roll back the signature
achievement of his last term: a law that would force ultraorthodox Israelis to
join the army like other citizens or perform a similar national service, with
jail time as the punishment for noncompliance. The new deals will also reinstate
welfare benefits for ultraorthodox Jews who prefer to avoid the workforce by
staying in religious study halls. The previous government, spearheaded by
then-finance minister Yair Lapid, insisted that such benefits gave the
ultraorthodox little incentive to work for a living. Lapid has since asserted
that the new concessions will cost over two billion shekels, or more than $500
million. Moreover, the ultraorthodox will retain their influence in ensuring
that Jews from the former Soviet Union undergo more restrictive forms of
religious conversion.
These concessions were made despite surveys showing that a majority of Israelis
want the ultraorthodox to perform national service, join the workforce, and give
up their role as the arbiters of conversions. In addition, Netanyahu apparently
failed to realize that outgoing foreign minister Avigdor Liberman would view
these moves as a bridge too far, especially the one directed against his secular
Russian immigrant constituency. Declaring that Netanyahu was taking him for
granted because his Yisrael Beitenu Party had only six seats, Liberman surprised
him by withdrawing from coalition negotiations. Given his ongoing personal
enmity toward Netanyahu, some speculated that the timing of his announcement --
forty-eight hours before the deadline to form a government -- was not
coincidental.
Indeed, Liberman left Netanyahu with no time to explore other options, so the
prime minister capitulated to the far-right Jewish Home Party and limped to the
finish line with the absolute minimum of 61 seats. In doing so, he agreed to
appoint thirty-nine-year-old Jewish Home member Ayelet Shaked as justice
minister, despite her open questioning of the Supreme Court's activist role in
Israeli democracy. Her appointment is deemed ominous, as are other Likud-favored
measures that could dilute the power of the Supreme Court and, to a lesser
extent, the media. Perhaps as a safety valve, Netanyahu has also given coalition
member Moshe Kahlon -- the leader of Kulanu, a moderate party identified with
social change -- veto power over certain legislation he does not like (as
mandated by the coalition agreement, which states that all members must agree on
specified initiatives).
Going forward, the coalition's razor-thin majority will magnify every member's
leverage to pull the plug on the new government. Accordingly, Netanyahu wants to
amend the law that limits the number of cabinet members to eighteen as soon as
possible, fearing that any malcontent Knesset member who does not get his or her
preferred cabinet portfolio could bring down the government before it is even
formed. He has already given away several key ministries, leaving many Likud
members squabbling over the remaining portfolios. This bodes poorly for
Netanyahu, who until now has always tried to form a large enough coalition to
avoid such situations. His only hope is that each coalition member will view the
concessions he has doled out as a better option than risking yet another round
of elections.
WILL LABOR JOIN THE GOVERNMENT?
Given the nascent government's precariousness, Likud officials are widely
hinting that Netanyahu might reverse his position and ask Labor to join the
coalition. With Liberman's resignation, Netanyahu has put aside the Foreign
Ministry portfolio for himself -- a move clearly designed to lure Labor leader
Isaac Herzog into his government. This raises a paradox: the more stable the
coalition, the better Herzog's chances of persuading his party to join, but if
the coalition remains shaky, he would likely face accusations of trying to
"rescue" Netanyahu. This is no small matter given next year's mandatory Labor
primary, a venue in which efforts to partner with Netanyahu would be especially
unpopular among the party's rank and file.
In addition, Herzog would likely ask for more than just the Foreign Ministry. If
he is in fact invited into the coalition, many expect his demands to include
changes in Israeli settlement policy, ouster of the Jewish Home Party (the main
advocate of settlements), and rotation with Netanyahu as prime minister so that
he is not merely a fifth wheel. Although Netanyahu is no doubt concerned about
the negative international perceptions of his narrow, largely right-wing
government, meeting Herzog's presumed demands would be a very high price to pay
domestically. And despite being in power for nine years, he has never added
Labor to a coalition mid-term.
EQUITIES FOR THE UNITED STATES
Washington will be following a variety of developments within the new Israeli
government. It will want to know how settler leader and former housing minister
Uri Ariel will use his new, lesser post as agriculture minister to influence
construction of settlement infrastructure. It will also monitor whether incoming
justice minister Shaked or influential Likud members Zeev Elkin and Yariv Levin
are able to shape legislation that strips away media protections or constrains
the power of the courts.
As for the Palestinian issue, with no peace agreement on the horizon, U.S.
officials are likely wondering if the new government can at least put together a
package of incremental steps that preserves the viability of future two-state
negotiations. Such steps could include a limitation on settlement construction,
as well as increased Palestinian economic access to more land in the West Bank,
even if this land is not formally reclassified. Washington also likely hopes
that Netanyahu has a solid plan for ensuring that Gaza does not blow up for the
fourth time in seven years.
Finally, the White House will look closely at how Netanyahu plays the endgame on
the Iran negotiations. This will largely be a personal decision for Netanyahu --
although the Iran issue has not been a major part of the electoral campaign or
its aftermath, he is known to view it in the most visceral manner. At the
moment, the administration is fairly confident that it has the votes it needs on
Capitol Hill to preserve whatever nuclear deal it may reach with Tehran (i.e.,
if the president is forced to veto congressional moves that undermine the
agreement, he believes his opponents will not have enough support to override
him).
For his part, Netanyahu will need to decide whether to withhold his opposition
to the deal until the very end or request a U.S. military package to offset the
deal's impact, as the Gulf Arab states seem poised to do at Camp David next
week. The Obama administration is keen on avoiding defections by key Democrats
at this stage, so Israel's leverage appears to be strong. Yet questions remain
about what happens if Netanyahu waits to speak out against a deal and Israel
finds itself associated with the losing end of a congressional vote to override
the president's veto. Whatever the case, he will have many factors to weigh,
including questions of security, principles, timing, and maintaining
bipartisanship, which has been at the core of U.S.-Israeli relations for
decades.
**David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and director of the Project
on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute.

Bibi is big in America, but less so in
Israel
David Ignatius/The Daily Star/ May. 09, 2015
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a dominating political figure in the
United States this year, seemingly invincible as he hurled thunderbolts at
President Barack Obama and other adversaries. But in Israel, not so much.
After winning a narrow election victory in March, Netanyahu formed a fragile
government late Wednesday with a bare one-vote margin in parliament. Israeli
analysts, left and right, are questioning whether the government can last long.
Netanyahu said Thursday he had been leaving the foreign minister position vacant
for Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, in hopes of broadening his base, but Herzog
quickly rejected the offer.
“Bibi has no agenda, other than challenging President Obama on Iran,” argues
Aluf Benn, the editor of the liberal newspaper Haaretz, using the prime
minister’s nickname. One sign of Netanyahu’s problems was the last-minute
defection by his previous foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Netanyahu has
been such a strong voice in America that it’s easy to overlook his political
problems back home. But these difficulties were highlighted by a broad range of
analysts during a conference in Tel Aviv this week organized by the Israeli
Institute for National Security Studies and Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer
Center, where I’m a fellow.
Israeli analysts note that Netanyahu’s congressional speech blasting the Iran
deal, which was so prominent and polarizing in America, didn’t matter much in
the Israeli election. He benefited from a late surge among conservative voters
who were scared by his election-day warning of a massive Arab turnout. But these
gains seem to have come partly at the expense of other conservative parties.
Yehuda Ben-Meir, a conservative former politician, argued in an analysis
published by INSS that Netanyahu’s core bloc of right-wing and religious parties
has actually been shrinking, falling from 65 parliament seats in 2009 to 61 in
2013 and 57 this year.
Benn contends that the real winners in March were two minority groups that stand
outside the Zionist mainstream, the ultra-Orthodox and the Israeli Arabs. He
worries because these groups don’t generally support the Israeli military.
To bolster his frail government, Netanyahu tried to woo his chief rival Herzog
into a broad “national unity government.” The two are said to have discussed
such a pact over the last few weeks, but Netanyahu wasn’t willing to offer
concessions on the Palestinian issue that Herzog wanted. Netanyahu instead opted
to lean further right by allying with Naftali Bennett’s party, which adamantly
opposes a Palestinian state. That chilled this week’s negotiations with Herzog,
but the idea of a broad coalition may return.
The U.S.-Israeli relationship is likely to be rocky for the remainder of Obama’s
presidency, assuming that Netanyahu continues his drive to scuttle the Iran
agreement. This tension contrasts sharply with the U.S.-Arab fence-mending that
will take place next week at Camp David when Obama discusses with Gulf leaders a
common strategy to curb Iranian meddling. It’s a peculiar reversal of roles, in
which the Gulf Arabs (who also criticize the Iran nuclear deal) are becoming the
responsible and conciliatory opposition, while Netanyahu, who leads a country
that is traditionally America’s closest Mideast ally, remains at loggerheads
with Obama.
Many Israeli analysts worry that the friction with Obama is eroding bipartisan
support in the U.S. for Israel. But it’s not a zero-sum game: An obvious
potential beneficiary is the Republican Party. With Netanyahu’s help, the
Republicans may be attempting a realignment that seeks to convince pro-Israel
voters that their natural home is the Republican Party, rather than a Democratic
Party that keeps pressuring Israel for concessions. The Republicans pulled off a
similar realignment a generation ago in convincing white Southerners to abandon
the Democrats.
A sign that conservative Americans and Israelis are seeking such a realignment
would be pledges by Republican presidential candidates to work with Netanyahu to
overturn the Iran deal. Obama, too, could drive a political wedge if he pushes
for a new U.N. Security Council resolution that codifies the “parameters” of the
peace deal Secretary of State John Kerry tried unsuccessfully to negotiate last
year.Netanyahu’s camp hopes for a new opening with Gulf Arab states that share
mistrust of Iran. A top Israeli official argues that the Jewish state is the
only reliable partner for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries in a region
dominated by Iran-backed Shiite radicals, a Turkish-led Muslim Brotherhood bloc,
and jihadis of Al-Qaeda and ISIS.An Israeli-Arab alliance against Iran is
intriguing. But like much else about Netanyahu’s fledgling government, it’s more
an aspiration than a practical agenda. Netanyahu, so potent in America, has a
shaky base at home.
*David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

United Kingdom's lesson in democracy
The Daily Star/May. 09, 2015
Thursday’s election in the United Kingdom – held on time and transparently – was
a true display of democracy at its finest, the product of a system which allows
its citizens to decide who will represent their interests.
Having long prided itself on being the one true democracy in the Middle East,
Lebanon might do well to reflect on whether it really can be defined as one.
Putting the obvious differences – political history and regional climate –
aside, there are simple steps which Lebanon needs to take to deserve the
democratic title. In the British election, winners and losers, in general, were
gracious in victory or defeat, and there were no accusations of corruption, no
gunfights – whether among candidates or supporters.
But here, bereft of a president, even talk of setting an election date is highly
controversial, and not deemed a right for the people, but a gift bestowed upon
them. Similarly, while politicians elsewhere realize that they are servants of
the people, here they largely act as if Lebanese citizens are their minions,
here to serve their interests and help them maintain power, not actually
represent their interests in parliament or anything like that. And when
elections are held, most of those standing are there by dint of their heritage,
being the son or wife or brother of someone else in power.
Students and intellectuals, writers and nurses and firemen and anyone who cares
about the future of this country must try to come up with a new word which
describes Lebanon’s political system, or lack thereof. Then democracy can become
the goal to work toward, not a word to throw around with no regard for its
definition.